This topic is sort of a continuation from the previous topic: ScannerProfiling: X-Rite's i1Pro & Eye-OneMatch3 VS SilverFast's v.8 IT8 AutoCal.What I am trying to do is provide the results from different scanner profiling softwares for anyone who is interested to download, review and hopefully post back with any comments, observations and advice.

Notes.- From what I've seen, assigning the profile and converting to ProPhoto in SilverFast produces the same results as doing this manually in Photoshop.(that's why I included a "RAW" scan with no Color Management/Profile so you can try to apply the profile on your own and compare with what SilverFast does)- Using Eye-One Match 3 & SilverFast IT8 Cal. produces areas that completely jump out of the ProPhoto space. (esp. SF IT8)Is this correct, useful, detrimental?- I will be posting more "Batches" of tests using different Targets (Wolf Faust & CCSG) and using Epson Scan instead of SilverFast.(That's the reason that folder #3 with the screen shots was included. To show comparisons of the results ini1Profiler and SilverFast IT8 Cal when the profile was created. This is more so to compare the different targets used.)

If anyone has any questions about the naming scheme or has any troubles downloading the files please don't hesitate to post your questions or write to me directly.

Screen shot of settings used in SilverFast when scanning the targets to make the profiles. (with no Color Management)Also same settings for scan(s) provided in folder "4.Scans of Targets no Color Management/Profile"

This topic is sort of a continuation from the previous topic: ScannerProfiling: X-Rite's i1Pro & Eye-OneMatch3 VS SilverFast's v.8 IT8 AutoCal.What I am trying to do is provide the results from different scanner profiling softwares for anyone who is interested to download, review and hopefully post back with any comments, observations and advice.

Thanks, I'd really love to download your material and examine it closely, but when I clicked on that link I got an error message from DropBox saying the folder does not exist. Grateful for your assistance with access.

Thanks, I'd really love to download your material and examine it closely, but when I clicked on that link I got an error message from DropBox saying the folder does not exist. Grateful for your assistance with access.

Mark

Thanks for letting me know about not being able to download.Apologies for any inconvenience. I am a new DropBox user.

This link (hopefully) should work.If not I'll try another method of providing the files.

I have get to this right because there will be many more files to come!

You got it - the new link worked. Not via Dropbox as far as I could see, but perhaps in the background. Anyhow, it simply downloaded everything into a zip archive that I was able to unpack in the usual way. (Now to set aside some time to study what you did. It will be a while.)

Everything was done exactly the same way as the first set of tests I posted using the Monaco IT8 Target to produce the profiles.The only difference in this set of tests is that I used a Wolf Faust IT8 Target.

Breakdown of Naming scheme for this Batch of tests is exactly the same as the first, except for the target used.130426_i1P-142 vs SF-IT8 vs i1Ma3_V750_SFv801r20_R120505W_CCSGcropto24•R120505W = Wolf Faust_IT8.7-2-1993 2012;05_Charge:R120505

Again I used the CCSG target as the subject matter for these tests.The entire CCSG was used for all tests but for upload/download purposes it has been cropped to The ColorChecker 24 Patch Classic target with some extra grays included.

My "reasoning" for doing the exact same tests using a different target was:1.) to hopefully see the consistent differences between the profiling softwares/solutions2.) to see the difference in results between the targets (I know not related to the topic of this thread)3.) because I had the targets, was curious and thought maybe someone else might find it interesting

Throughout all these tests please keep an eye on the "3.ScreenShots" folder.Especially the results from i1Profiler which displays the various Delta Es.The next set of tests where I use the CCSG as the target to create the profiles might surprise some of you with the results from i1Profiler. (sure surprised me)

Not sure how many downloads of the files have been done till now because DropBox does not show this info.So I do hope some of you are finding this interesting enough to download and check out the files.If anyone has, maybe they can reply here with their thoughts, observations and comments.(It's actually kind of interesting when you drop the files in Photoshop as layers and turn them on & off)

I have downloaded both sets but won't be able to review them and make comments (if any) for at least the remainder of this month due to workload. Many thanks for doing this work and sharing it - I have confidence whatever they contain will be of interest.

I have downloaded both sets but won't be able to review them and make comments (if any) for at least the remainder of this month due to workload. Many thanks for doing this work and sharing it - I have confidence whatever they contain will be of interest.

No problem Marc take your time on this.I am having the same issue with time and workload.That's the reason the posts are not coming as fast as I would have liked.Thank you for the interest and I hope something useful can be taken away from all these tests when they are all finally posted.

Primarily this started off as a comparison of scanner profiling softwares but you can also observe the differences between all thetargets that were used and even the differences between the two different scanning softwares that were used. SilverFast and Epson Scan.

The fun part for me was when all the tests were completed, taking all of them, stacking them as layers in one Photoshop file, settingup four eye dropper points and just turning the layers on & off to see the difference in numbers along with the visual observations.Also comparing the profiles in ColorSync.

Yes Scott.The next set of tests to be posted will be using the CCSG as the Target that helped create the profiles.But this set of tests will only be comparing the differences between i1Profiler and i1Match because this target was not compatible with SilverFast's IT8 feature.(at least I couldn't figure out how to get them to work together)

As I stated in my previous post now you can start to also compare the differences between the targets that were used in these tests.To be honest I was very surprised with the results from the CCSG as compared to the other targets.I am specifically referring to the ΔE results in i1Profiler after the profile was created.I was a little confused why the results were so different as compared to the other 2 targets. (that's why I ran the tests over many times)Please see the folder "3.ScreenShots" for the final results of each profile made in i1Profiler to see what I mean.I will be posting the CCSG tests (hopefully) in the next 24hrs.

Thank you Ernst for these links.I actually saw them in one of your posts earlier this year.Very interesting! Especially the one on Consumer flatbed scanners.Almost convinced me to give up my Epson V750 for one of those HPs.

But what this thread is about and the tests that are being posted here are specificallyabout comparing scanner profiling softwares.The links you provided (from what I read & observed) do not have too much relationto this post and are a LOT more "scientifically" done than what I have tried here.But very interesting none the less.

The V750 will still do the film scans better and I expect photo scans too. The intention was to show that some scanners are more suited for reflective non-photo originals than others. In that sense it may be a better way to start with a scanner that does that job better and then profile it with CCSG and check whether that improves compared to the OEM profiling before comparing different profile creators. The other route is to start with a scanner that does photo originals best (V750 for example) and then profile with the two IT8s you have and compare again to the OEM profile before you start with comparing the different profile creators. To compare CCSG target results to IT8 target results may only show that the last is better suited for photo originals.

Bought a secondhand HP G4010 yesterday to see what it does. I will compare it to the Epson 3200 though as that one gave me better watercolor etc scans than the V700 I have here. Both straight from the box and Epson profiles. It must have to do with the sensor specification and on what Epson aimed with both.

Everything was done exactly the same way as the first & second sets of tests I posted using the Monaco IT8 Target & the Wolf Faust IT8 Target to produce the profiles.The only difference in this set of tests is that X-Rite's ColorChecker Digital SG was used to help create the profiles.

Breakdown of Naming scheme for this Batch of tests is exactly the same as the first, except for the target used.130426_i1P-142 vs i1Ma3_V750_SFv801r20_ColorCheckerDigitalSG_CCSGcropto24•ColorCheckerDigitalSG = X-Rite's ColorChecker® Digital SG (semi-gloss)

Again I used the CCSG target as the subject matter for these tests.The entire CCSG was used for all tests but for upload/download purposes it has been cropped to The ColorChecker 24 Patch Classic target with some extra grays included.

As I asked earlier, please see the results (in the "3.ScreenShots" folder) from i1Profilerwhich displays the various Delta Es and compare to the results from the 1st & 2nd tests.Not sure why there was such a difference in numbers.I asked X-Rite about this. They didn't really get into it.Just told me that the CCSG was not originally/specifically designed to be used for profiling scanners just cameras.They also mentioned some changes coming to scanner profiling in i1Profiler in the next update of v1.5!?!?

The next set of tests will use Eye-One Match and the i1 Scan target 1.4.These will be the last of the reflective tests using SilverFast as the scanning software.

Just told me that the CCSG was not originally/specifically designed to be used for profiling scanners just cameras.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that it's not excellent for scanner profiling. The patches represent a much more saturated sampling of colors than film based targets, and thus help characterize a larger portion of the scanner's gamut.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that it's not excellent for scanner profiling. The patches represent a much more saturated sampling of colors than film based targets, and thus help characterize a larger portion of the scanner's gamut.

HutchColor HCT target support would be nice wouldn't it?

The HutchColor target has a wider gamut as I understand it but relies on the usual 3 photo dyes. The CCSG is based on more pigments/colorants. There is more to it like the white reflectance and neutrality of the base;